TexasCHLforum.com

lcarreau wrote:

kauboy wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:From Wikipedia;

Block letters may mean any of the following :

In America, they are simple letters that children are taught to write in first grade. They have no serifs and are upright. The name presumably comes from their appearance on wooden blocks that children play with, although these often use conventional Roman typeforms. Deriving from this usage, “block letters� any crude serif or sans-serif font that is formed by cutting a material such as wood or metal without the finer-artistry sophistication usually associated with professional type design in typography.
On official forms, when one is asked to write one's name, the request is usually made to write entirely in capital letters (block letters). This is because cursive handwriting, and especially signatures, can be hard to read. It is often misconstrued that one must write in capital letters when writing in block letters. Contrary to popular belief, and requests from Treasury, block letters can be written in both upper and lower case, at the writer's discretion. Cases such as Fossil Inc v The Fossil Group involving patents, trademarks and registration of designs clearly indicate that block letters may comprise of either lower or upper case.

Oh good, we turn to Wikipedia for answers to a legal question. Hey Charles, do you rely on Wiki when you're researching a case? Obviously its "the" place to get truthful information.

You have cited no credible source for your assertions. Why would you think Wikipedia is not a credible source? Do you think block letters have a special meaning in this context?

-Lonnie

Its OK. It is common for people to attack the messenger when they have no credible and substantial argument.

kauboy wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:From Wikipedia;

Block letters may mean any of the following :

In America, they are simple letters that children are taught to write in first grade. They have no serifs and are upright. The name presumably comes from their appearance on wooden blocks that children play with, although these often use conventional Roman typeforms. Deriving from this usage, “block letters� any crude serif or sans-serif font that is formed by cutting a material such as wood or metal without the finer-artistry sophistication usually associated with professional type design in typography.
On official forms, when one is asked to write one's name, the request is usually made to write entirely in capital letters (block letters). This is because cursive handwriting, and especially signatures, can be hard to read. It is often misconstrued that one must write in capital letters when writing in block letters. Contrary to popular belief, and requests from Treasury, block letters can be written in both upper and lower case, at the writer's discretion. Cases such as Fossil Inc v The Fossil Group involving patents, trademarks and registration of designs clearly indicate that block letters may comprise of either lower or upper case.

Oh good, we turn to Wikipedia for answers to a legal question. Hey Charles, do you rely on Wiki when you're researching a case? Obviously its "the" place to get truthful information.

"Good faith" effort or not, the law is the law and they must abide by it just as I must. I don't get the leisure to bend it at will and be expected to get away with it. The example given by the DPS is what the sign should resemble, and theirs simply doesn't.

Charles has said that when there is no definition listed in the law for a particular word, then the common usage of the word is what is expected.

I simply quoted a source that has a non-legal definition of a word in common usage. If you have a source of another definition and proof that it is an accepted PENAL CODE definition I suggest you post it here.

Since you decided to be a juvenile about it, I'll just say this; you carry wherever you want. But you are posting on a forum where many people will read your comments. It is wrong for you to make statements about legalities that could cause another person to have a legal problem.

This sign is a valid legal sign. If you carry where this sign is posted you would be committing a class A misdemeanor.

From Wikipedia;

Block letters may mean any of the following :

In America, they are simple letters that children are taught to write in first grade. They have no serifs and are upright. The name presumably comes from their appearance on wooden blocks that children play with, although these often use conventional Roman typeforms. Deriving from this usage, “block letters� any crude serif or sans-serif font that is formed by cutting a material such as wood or metal without the finer-artistry sophistication usually associated with professional type design in typography.
On official forms, when one is asked to write one's name, the request is usually made to write entirely in capital letters (block letters). This is because cursive handwriting, and especially signatures, can be hard to read. It is often misconstrued that one must write in capital letters when writing in block letters. Contrary to popular belief, and requests from Treasury, block letters can be written in both upper and lower case, at the writer's discretion. Cases such as Fossil Inc v The Fossil Group involving patents, trademarks and registration of designs clearly indicate that block letters may comprise of either lower or upper case.

KBCraig wrote:

kauboy wrote:Block letters are all capitalized and all the same height (same width too, I think).

There is no single definition of "block letters", and no requirement that they be all capitals. Of the varying definitions, the only thing in common is that "block" means "not cursive or script".

It would be rather futile to argue that mixed-case signage doesn't meet the requirement just because the lower-case letters were less than 1" in height. Especially if they were all of the same scale.

Kevin

KBCraig wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:Discretion is NOT selective enforcement.

My mistake. I didn't realize we were restricted to the "TXI Dictionary".

Don't pour hateraid because I'm right.

Arock wrote:And PC30.05f reads:
"It is a defense to prosecution under this section that"
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying."

The DA's office in our county understands this to mean licensed CHL carry is allowed. They will not file charges based on your assertion. It would surprise me if any DA who reads tha statute would proceed differently.

That doesn't prevent a cop from trying to invent cop-law on the spot but that won't fly with the professionals.

I understand. Again, there have been assertions here that SOME govt owned offices are excluding CHL by virtue of wanding, searching or metal detecting. When that occurs, right or wrong, the CHL holder has no recourse at that time but to comply.

I agree it is wrong; however, I am not willing to get arrested over this point.

Discretion is NOT selective enforcement.

Selective enforcement is where pre-selected sets of criteria are laid out and enforcement is taken only on that pre-selected criteria.

Discretion is where an officer uses the totality of the circumstances when deciding to make an arrest.

Arock wrote:Thank you for your reply. It is what I anticipated.

With your thought in mind, PC30.06e specifically prohibits governmental entities from enforcing the remainder of 30.06 for license holders.

And PC30.05 in non-applicable.

So what statute is going to be used to prosecute a CHL carrying in an otherwise legal area?

In reverse; 30.05 is a defense to prosecution, not non-applicable.

In all probability the employees would first just tell you that you cannot enter with the gun. If you pressed the issue they would tell you to leave completely. If you refused, in all likelyhood they would arrest you for 30.05 at that point.

It would be interesting to see how that played out; however, I am not interested enought to discover first hand.

Arock wrote:A govt entity cannot go around barring people from places and activities just because they feel like it. There has to be a reason and a statute to back it up.

I would appreciate a cite to the applicable statute.

Actually it is the other way around. Unless statutorily prohibited from barring people, they can.

Laws restrict things, and are not written to allow things, generally. So unless the law proscribes conduct, it is allowed.


It is like me saying "show me the law that says you can walk down the street without carrying government issued ID." There is no law to show, as it does not exist. However, just because the law does not state you CAN do that, does not mean you cannot. In fact, by NOT proscribing that, you can legally walk down the street with no government issued ID.

Show me the law that says you CAN carry a rifle in your vehicle.

nitrogen wrote:So basically, if I understand, it goes something like this:

"The law says that govt. owned entities cannot restrict CHL's soley based on them carrying a legally concealed weapon,

No, the law says YOU are exempt from 30.06 at a govt owned place. It does not say they cannot restrict. It looks like simple semantics, but if it read that they could not restrict, THEN they would be in violation if they did,

but there is no penalty to them if they decide to break this law.

There is no law for them break. To break a law there has to be a specific prohibition that you violate. In the case of the govt, there is no specific law that says they cannot post.

The CHL has more to lose than the govt. entity in this case."

Unfortunately it seems as though you are correct.

Arock wrote:I want to post a public apology to TXI. I have a bad habit of coming across poorly on the internet. TXI did not deserve my responses. I PM'ed him an apology and want to do it in front of all of us as well.

You have my sincere apology.

Arock

No apology needed as I saw nothing out of line, but I accept.

I have a pretty thick skin and I actually enjoy good debate.

Arock wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

Arock wrote: IIRC he also had great difficulty understanding the presumption of travelling statute as it benefits the average citizen instead of the cop.

Please explain this. The presumption of traveling is not needed for a Peace Officer.

What I said, and maintain, is that if you meet the 5 elements of the presumption, then you ARE traveling. If you are traveling, then 46.02 is not applicable to you.

How did I not understand?

My recollection is it was you who took several pages of patient explanation before you finally conceeded the presumption of travelling statute worked to the benefit of the citizen.

That was not me. I have been a proponent of this since it passed. I DID tell some that I dind't care what the Houston DA said he would do, it was clearly not a violation if you met the presumption.

Now answer my question per: "Please show me where it states a public entity can further restrict licensed concealed carry on the basis of these statutes."[/quote]

seamusTX wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:So in our scenario even though you clearly engaged in conduct that meets the statutory requirement of criminal homicide, you can use the defense to prosecution based on 9.32 (deadly force in defense of a person) to be found not-guilty.

I hope that makes sense.

Yes. Thanks. As I am not a lawyer and have never been invovled in a criminal case in Texas, I have trouble with concepts like "defense" and "presumption."

On a practical level, it seems that when you clearly have a defense, you may not even be arrested. Many justified self-defense shooters are not arrested.

- Jim

Absolutely. Especially where the evidence is clear.

Arock wrote:

"txinvestigator

Arock, keep fighting the good fight. You said that the Sheriff has the final decision. Thats simply not the case and he needs to realize it. THE LAW has the final decision and he simply has to abide by it. Don't give up until things are set right. Good luck!

No, actually the law only says 30.06 is an exception if the place is owned or leased by the govt. No where does any law say a public entity cannot restrict concealed carry.

I disagree. PC30.06e clearly states the entirety of PC30.06 does not apply to a holder of license to carry concealed handgun on public owned or leased property not already covered by PC46.03 and PC46.035.

Please show me where it states a public entity can further restrict licensed concealed carry on the basis of these statutes.

If you were referring to this question;

I agree with you in part, again, I ask the question few want to answer, what will you do if they do not allow you entry? Force your way in?

And there is no penalty TO THEM if they post contrary to 30.06 and DO keep you out. Therefore the law does not restrict the entity from keeping you out, it simply makes it NOT an offense under 30.06 if it is a govt owned facility.

Arock wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

Arock wrote:

seamusTX wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:For you to have access to the defense, you must first have committed the crime. If you commit the crime, the police can arrest, as the defense must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Not by probable cause.

Can you clarify what must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

I thought the state had to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not the defendant to prove his innocence.

- Jim

This is TXI's problem. IIRC he also had great difficulty understanding the presumption of travelling statute as it benefits the average citizen instead of the cop.

No actually, I understand it completely. You clearly don't understand how a defense to prosecution works. I suggest you read my post above.

Answer my question first.

You didn't ask one.